Published AAO appeal decisions

Table tennis player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed one-time achievement and three criteria. Met only awards and published material criteria (two total), falling short of three required. No major internationally recognized award found. Appeal dismissed.

Sports manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed three criteria but met none. Decision found membership did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, publications lacked evidence of major media status, and business founding lacked demonstrated major field impact. Appeal dismissed.

A tennis academy petitioned for a coaching professional seeking O-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. The applicant claimed awards and membership criteria based on scholarships and organization participation but the AAO found neither satisfied the regulatory threshold. The appeal was dismissed because fewer than three evidentiary criteria were met and overall evidence did not demonstrate the small percentage at the field's top.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

An options market consultant and educator self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner met none of the analyzed regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A powerboat racer sought EB-1A classification as an individual with extraordinary ability. The petitioner claimed awards, membership, and published material criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion met but membership and published material not met. Because fewer than three criteria were satisfied, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching the final merits analysis.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu gym petitioned for O-1 classification for a jiu-jitsu coach. The AAO dismissed, finding the beneficiary failed to meet three evidentiary criteria: awards lacked documentation of national or international recognition, memberships did not require recognized expert evaluation, and published materials were instructional videos rather than professional publications.

Professional golfer appeals denial. Claimed membership and high salary criteria on appeal; two criteria met overall. AAO dismissed, finding membership requires outstanding achievement not demonstrated and salary at developmental level insufficient for top-tier classification.

A nurse sought EB-1A classification. The AAO reviewed four criteria the service center analyzed. The petitioner did not meet the membership criterion, did not establish a leading role, and failed to show comparatively high salary. The appeal was dismissed.

Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.

A taekwondo studio petitioned for O-1A classification for a taekwondo master. The petitioner claimed awards and membership criteria but failed to establish either through sufficient evidence. The decision also found no proper contract and itinerary for the requested employment period. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three of eight criteria.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

A fencing club petitioned for a fencing coach's O-1A classification. The beneficiary claimed extraordinary ability based on competitive fencing awards, coaching accomplishments, and refereeing experience. The AAO found only the judging criterion met; awards predated his coaching career and student achievements did not satisfy his own recognition requirement. Appeal dismissed.

A yacht management company petitioned for O-1A classification for a beneficiary in business. The AAO found beneficiary met only one evidentiary criterion and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability required.

Canyoneering guide sought extraordinary ability in athletics. Claimed membership and published material criteria but failed to satisfy initial evidentiary requirements. AAO found membership standards did not require outstanding achievements and articles lacked publication in major venues.

Tennis academy sought O-1A classification for beneficiary tennis coach. AAO found beneficiary lacked major international award and failed to satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria, particularly regarding awards under comparable evidence standard and membership in qualifying associations.

Architect claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: exhibitions. AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, leading role, and commercial success criteria. Found petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold; did not establish sustained acclaim or top status.

Researcher in gastroenterology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director initially found only two criteria met, but AAO considered three criteria in final merits determination. AAO found petitioner failed all analyzed criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A radiation oncologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria; AAO found three criteria technically met but dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field of endeavor.